Make public schools smaller and have schools within. We had three stories and on each floor was a different mini school and it was fantastic

That's a good idea but I would like to see some rotation between the mini schools. For instance I had that sort of thing growing up, we had a science/math school, business and trade. You picked one in 10th grade and then took classes within one. Some kids changed their minds later and it was hard to change. Plus some kids didn't know which one they liked. I would like to be able to have kids take some in each for a bit and then decide when its time to graduate where they want to move, either to college or trade school. Many charters around here are like that and they are immensely popular. A kid can pick STEM and spend 3/4s of the day doing labs and such. Kids love that.

Making kids of all sorts interact together was one of the original PURPOSES of public schooling. Where else in American life do Americans ALL have to deal with each other? The DMV, maybe?

One central purpose of the Common School movement (the original movement to create state-run, compulsory education) was to help kids understand and accept where they fit into the overall US society. This back in the 1840's. There was significant social unrest among the lower SES because they saw others getting ahead and didn't see opportunity for themselves. Common Schools were aimed at mixing kids together and instilling in them American values of patriotism, cooperative community, and a sense that everyone has a place and a purpose in creating the society we call America. At that time people feared that without some leveling institution that taught everyone the value of the American Experiment, the society could fly apart.

If we don't have any such institutions where the "riffraff," the middle classes and those with more mix, how do we maintain a cooperative, democratic society? Being a democratic republic requires investment and "buy in" by the population generally.

Making kids of all sorts interact together was one of the original PURPOSES of public schooling. Where else in American life do Americans ALL have to deal with each other? The DMV, maybe?

One central purpose of the Common School movement (the original movement to create state-run, compulsory education) was to help kids understand and accept where they fit into the overall US society. This back in the 1840's. There was significant social unrest among the lower SES because they saw others getting ahead and didn't see opportunity for themselves. Common Schools were aimed at mixing kids together and instilling in them American values of patriotism, cooperative community, and a sense that everyone has a place and a purpose in creating the society we call America. At that time people feared that without some leveling institution that taught everyone the value of the American Experiment, the society could fly apart.

If we don't have any such institutions where the "riffraff," the middle classes and those with more mix, how do we maintain a cooperative, democratic society? Being a democratic republic requires investment and "buy in" by the population generally.

Mr. Rasselas,

That was then, this is now. These days, the disruptive students bring down the students that want to achieve and learn.

But don't worry. The middle classes, and those with more do mix, when they walk up to the counter at McDonalds and order a big mac from the riff raff.

That's a good idea but I would like to see some rotation between the mini schools. For instance I had that sort of thing growing up, we had a science/math school, business and trade. You picked one in 10th grade and then took classes within one. Some kids changed their minds later and it was hard to change. Plus some kids didn't know which one they liked. I would like to be able to have kids take some in each for a bit and then decide when its time to graduate where they want to move, either to college or trade school. Many charters around here are like that and they are immensely popular. A kid can pick STEM and spend 3/4s of the day doing labs and such. Kids love that.

Most developed countries have a system like that, but it's only partly a self-selective process. In Europe and elsewhere, kids take exams in about the 8th grade (or equivalent) and then again when they are about 16. They have to get a passing score on the first exam to continue into an academic secondary school situation. The second exam is differentiated by subject area, and students have to score well in a subject area (most take exams in multiple areas) in order to continue with their studies at university. You get some choice, but the exams are a very stressful issue for most students. And once a choice is made, it's hard to change direction. That means the process of selection starts as early as age 12 or 13, and it's exclusionary.

Judging from my experience from my nieces and my friend's kids, private schools are heads and shoulders above public. Public schools tend to just be day care centers, whereas, private schools actually teach. My one niece went to private schools from grade 1 through grade 11. She decided to go to public schools her senior year, and was in essence, was taught subjects she had already learned in her sophomore and junior years.

Pretty much all my other nieces and friends kids who went to private school scored very high on their SATs and got accepted into prestigious colleges.

I will say that the part of New Jersey where my brother lives has an excellent program for separating the wheat from the chaff. There are several regional specialty high schools (concentrating in Arts, Science, Math) that you have to compete to get into, and where students don't have to associate with the riff raff. His kids seem to be flourishing in that environment.

I do a lot of work with religious schools and let me tell you their teachers aren't that great at all. One of the principals complained to me that her biggest problem is the best teachers leave to go to public school.
I taught in the city school and we have the greatest teachers. It was filled with idealism and creativity because they made it into three mini schools. It was as good as any private school

That's a good idea but I would like to see some rotation between the mini schools. For instance I had that sort of thing growing up, we had a science/math school, business and trade. You picked one in 10th grade and then took classes within one. Some kids changed their minds later and it was hard to change. Plus some kids didn't know which one they liked. I would like to be able to have kids take some in each for a bit and then decide when its time to graduate where they want to move, either to college or trade school. Many charters around here are like that and they are immensely popular. A kid can pick STEM and spend 3/4s of the day doing labs and such. Kids love that.

My school was a failing school with about 900 students. The chancellor gave us a teacher's dream. The 900 kids applied to one of the mini schools..remember this is middle school. One school was the Academy with very strong academics, the other was the business theme and mine was academic and social action. The beauty of it was all classes were very small about 20 kids. When it was declared a success, the funding dried up.

That was then, this is now. These days, the disruptive students bring down the students that want to achieve and learn.

But don't worry. The middle classes, and those with more do mix, when they walk up to the counter at McDonalds and order a big mac from the riff raff.

I don't think you get my point. Common schools were as much about creating social stability as educating students. How will we create social stability in a free society when (from what we can see all around us) more and more people feel as though their country doesn't offer them anything? If the riff raff were burning haystacks in the 1840's, I can only imagine what they'd be capable of today. You really prefer the "police state" option?

This is a serious question and deserves more than "I'm better than thou" snark.

In Europe and elsewhere, kids take exams in about the 8th grade (or equivalent) and then again when they are about 16. They have to get a passing score on the first exam to continue into an academic secondary school situation.

Nope! Testing across Europe is quite diverse. It can be used for selection in extreme cases (e.g. grammar schooling in some counties in England). However, its more common to see it as serving a monitoring purpose (allowing comparison of School/class performance relative to the national average)

The second exam is differentiated by subject area, and students have to score well in a subject area (most take exams in multiple areas) in order to continue with their studies at university. You get some choice, but the exams are a very stressful issue for most students. And once a choice is made, it's hard to change direction. That means the process of selection starts as early as age 12 or 13, and it's exclusionary.

Not quite right! Again, there is considerable variation (e.g. 4 year university degrees where you don't lock into a subject area until year 2). Even in England (the most neoliberal of all European countries), only a minority of degrees require specific further education qualifications (e.g. Economics will often ask for background in Mathematics)

#1. Question: Did you keep your daughter in this private school? If you took her out, did you put her in another Private School, or, the Public System.

#2. Statement:

THIS:

her education was supplemented at home,

...is, in my opinion, THE most important part of a child's education. NOT that a parent has to be a "teacher" at home (Parents are ALWAYS teachers, LOL, whether they want to be, or not!). But, rather, that parents TAKE INTEREST and ENCOURAGE their children, when it comes to education. Sadly, there are many parents who think education is a waste, and they actually imply this to their kids. Why, would a child waste his or her efforts on something their parents do not see as valid, or, all that encouraging????

#1. Question: Did you keep your daughter in this private school? If you took her out, did you put her in another Private School, or, the Public System.

#2. Statement:

THIS:

...is, in my opinion, THE most important part of a child's education. NOT that a parent has to be a "teacher" at home (Parents are ALWAYS teachers, LOL, whether they want to be, or not!). But, rather, that parents TAKE INTEREST and ENCOURAGE their children, when it comes to education. Sadly, there are many parents who think education is a waste, and they actually imply this to their kids. Why, would a child waste his or her efforts on something their parents do not see as valid, or, all that encouraging????

Absolutely true. It doesn't require a lot of effort on the part of parents to make a big difference. Check their homework. Put papers with good grades on the fridge. Take them to a museum once in a while. Read with them. Let them see you reading. Little things.